2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit 2-25-2010 

# Y iu C hen v . Atty Gen U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1310

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Y iu C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1827. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2010/1827NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 1310

___________ YI U M ANG C HE N, a/k/ a Y i m an C hen, Pet i t i oner

v. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S ,

R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 079- 682- 340) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e D ani el A . M ei s ner

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February17, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: February25, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Y i u M ang C hen pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on r ender ed bythe B oar d of I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) d e n y i n g h e rmo t i o n t o r e o p e n . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w,2

we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I . B ackgr ound Pet i t i onerY i u M ang C hen i s a ci t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na and a nat i ve of the Fuj i an Pr ovi nce. She ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l yi n M ar ch 2002 and wa s s e rv e d wi th a n o t i c e t o a p p e a r . S h o r t l yth e r e a f t e r , s h e a p p l i e d f

o ra s y l u m, w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”), cl ai m i ng pas tper s ecut i on and a f earof futur e per s ecut i on bas ed upon C hi na’ s coer ci ve fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . H erappl i cat i on w as deni ed. O n M ay14, 2008, m or e than tw o y ear s aft erthe B I A had l as tcons i der ed hercas e, C hen fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen a nd fora s t ayof r emoval . I n herm ot i on, C hen cl ai m ed a f e a r t h a t s h e w ill b e f

o rc ib ly ste ri liz e d in C h in a d u e to th e b ir th o f h e r s e c o n d c h ild , a U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n . O n S e p te m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , th e B IA d e n ie d re lie f. T h ro u g h c o u n se l, C h e n f iled a tim e lyp e tit io n f

o r re v iew in th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r t h e S e c o n d C ir c u it. T h e p e titio n h a s b e e n tr a n s f e rr e d to th is C o u rt . II. A n a ly sis W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w p u r s u a n tt o I NA § 2 4 2 [ 8 U. S . C. § 1252] . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctfors ubs t ant i al evi dence and the deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen f

orabus e of di s cr et i on. See Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 170 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he B I A ’ s deci s i on i s ent i t l ed t o “br oad def er ence , ” s ee Ezea gw una v. A s h c r o f t , 3 2 5 F . 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 9 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d w e w i l l u p h o l d i tu n l e s s i tw a s “ a rb i tr a ry,3

irra tio n a l, o r c o n tr a ry to la w .” T ip u v . IN S , 2 0 F .3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). To p r e v a i l o n h e rmo t i o n t o r e o p e n , Ch e n wa s r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h p r i ma f a c ie e lig ib ility f

o r r e lie f. S e e G u o v . A s h c ro f t, 3 8 6 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). B ecaus e s he fi l ed herm ot i on m or e than ni netyday s aft erthe fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on w as r ender ed i n hercas e, s ee 8 C. F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) , s he w as r equi r ed t o pr es ent evi dence thati s “mat er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed or p re se n ted a t th e p re v io u s h e a rin g ,” w h ich e sta b lish e s “ c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s a risin g in th e c o u n tryo f

n a tio n a lity.” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 3 )( ii) . In s u p p o rto f

re o p e n in g , C h e n s u b m itte d a n e w a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n a n d a f f id a v it. A . R . 30- 31, 124- 34. She al s o pr ovi ded: ( 1) evi dence of hers econd c hi l d’ s bi r th i n 2005; ( 2) tw o 2003 Fuj i an Pr ovi nce a dm i ni s tr at i ve fa m i l ypl anni ng deci s i ons , A . R . 48- 49, 51- 52; ( 3) an A ugus t2004 aff i davi tbydemographerJ ohn A i r d, A . R . 54- 114; ( 4) a “not i ce fr om the Fuzhou C i tyPopul at i on and B i r th C ontr ol O ffi ce” dat ed A pr i l 2008, A . R . 43; a n d (5 ) a Ju n e 2 0 0 7 N e w Y o rk T im e s a rticle d isc u ss in g in d iv id u a ls w h o re tu rn e d to Ch i n a a n d we r e f

o r c i b l ys t e r i l i z e d , A. R. 1 1 6 - 2 2 . Af t e rc l o s e l yr e v i e wi n g th e r e c o r d , we co n clud e tha t th e B IA d id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d eterm ining that C h en ’s d o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e d id n o t e s ta b lis h m a te ri a lly c h a n g e d c o n d itio n s in C h in a . Ch e n c l a i ms th a tth e BI A “ i g n o r e d ” h e re v i d e n c e . Wh i l e Ch e n i s c o rr e c tth a twe have r emanded cas es i n w hi ch the B I A fai l ed t o cons i deri m por t antevi dence i n s uppor tof r eopeni ng, s ee Zheng v. A tt ’ yG en. , 549 F. 3d 260, 268- 69 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( “[G ] i ven the4

B IA ’s f a ilu re to d isc u ss m o st o f th e e v id e n tiary rec o rd in Z h e n ’s c a se . . . w e w ill v a c a te the B I A ’ s [dec i s i on] . . . . ”) , thi s s i m pl yi s nots uch a c as e. C hen has fai l ed t o s peci fyany i m port antdocumentthatthe B I A fai l ed t o cons i deri n r eac hi ng i t s concl us i on. I ndeed, the B IA sp ec ifi ca ll yd iscu ssed the m ajorityo f C h en ’s ev iden ce . B ase d u p o n the B IA ’s anal y s i s , w e ar e conf

i dentthatthe B I A adequa t el yr evi ew ed the ent i r e r ecor d i n r eac hi ng i t s deci s i on thatC hen fa i l ed t o m eetherbur den of pr oof. See Li u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 555 F. 3d 1 4 5 , 1 4 9 -5 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). C hen foc us es pr i m ar i l yupon the not i ce f r om Fuzhou C i ty , Fuj i an Pr ovi nce, w hi ch sta tes th a t au th o rities a re a w a re o f th e b irth o f

C h e n ’s s e c o n d c h ilda n d th a t C h e n is “h ere b yo rde red to u n d erg o the s teri li za ti o n o p era ti o n im m ed iat ely . ” A . R . 4 3 . T h e B IA found thatthe not i ce i s a copyw i thoutauthent i cat i ng i nform at i on, s ee 8 C. F. R . § 287. 6, a n d th a t C h e n f

a ile d to e x p la in h e r f

a ilu re to p ro v id e a u th e n tic a tio n . C h e n d o e s n o t d isp u te th e B IA ’s f in d in g th a t th e F u z h o u C ityn o tice lac k e d in d icia of authent i ci ty . I ns t ead, s he ar gues thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydecl i ni ng t o gi ve w e i gh tt o the Fuz ho u Ci tyno t i c e un de rI n r e S- Y - G - , 24 I & N D e c . 24 7 ( BI A 20 07 ) . I n SY -G -, th e B IA h e ld th a t: an al i en i n the appl i cant ’ s ci r cumst ance s m ays ucce s s ful l yr eopen hi s or heras y l um cas e i f, on a ca s e- by - cas e ana l y s i s , the genui ne, authent i c, and o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le e v id e n c e p ro v e s th a t (1 ) a re lev a n t ch a n g e in c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s o c c u rre d , (2 ) th e a p p lica n t h a s v io late d f a m ily p l a n n i n g p o l i c y a s e s t a b l i s h e d i n th a ta l i e n 's l o c a l p r o v i n c e , m u n i c i p a l i ty, orotherr el evantar ea, and ( 3) the vi ol at i on w oul d be puni s hed i n a w ay thatw oul d gi ve r i s e t o a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on.5

S -Y -G -, 2 4 I& N D e c . at 2 5 1 . A c c o rd in g to C h e n , S -Y -G - d o e s n o t ab so lu tely re q u ire a n in d iv id u a l to p re se n t “g e n u in e , au th e n tic, a n d o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le evi dence . ” R ather , s uch evi dence i s one w aythata movant“may ” es t abl i s h her cas e forr eopeni ng – i m pl y i ng thatevi dence found t o be non- genui ne, i nauthent i c, orobj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e evi dence “may ” al s o s upportr eopeni ng. W e r e j e c tChen ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on . W e un de r s t a nd the BI A ’ s ho l di ng i n SY - G - t o m ean thatr eopeni ng “may ” ( r atherthan “must ”) be w arr ant ed, even w h e re th e “ g e n u in e , au th e n tic, a n d o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le” e v id e n c e su p p o rts reo p en ing , b ec au se th e a g en cyn o n ethe less retains the u lt im ate d iscreti o n ary author i tyt o denyr eopeni ng. See C al l e- V uj i l es v. A s hcr oft , 320 F. 3d 472, 475 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( B I A r et ai ns w i de di s cr et i on t o denyr eopeni ng even w her e a m o v a n t h a s m a d e o u t a p ri m a f a c ie c a s e f

o r r e lie f ). W h ile C h e n ’s f

a ilu re to a u th e n tica te th e n o tice d o e s n o t p e r se re q u ire its e x c lu sio n , an a b se n c e o f e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g a u th e n ticitym a yu n d e rm in e its e v id e n tia ry v a lu e . S e e C h e n v . G o n z a le s , 4 3 4 F .3 d 2 1 2 , 2 1 9 -2 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA ’s d e c isio n to a c c o rd little w e ig h t to th e F u z h o u C ity n o tice is re a so n a b le in lig h t o f S -Y -G - a s w e ll as th is C o u rt’s p re c e d e n t, an d it r es t s upon s ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he B I A al s o adequa t el yaddr es s ed C hen’ s 2003 Fuj i an fa m i l ypl anni ng decis i on s and 2 00 4 A i rd affi dav i t . T he B IA reas on ablyrel i ed u po n p ast6

deci s i ons , w hi ch cons i der ed pr eci s el ythe s ame docum ent s and conc l uded that th e yd o n o t d e m o n stra te a m a ter ial c h a n g e in th e F u jian P ro v in c e f

a m ily pl anni ng pol i cy . See M att erof S- Y - G - , 24 I & N D ec. 247, 254- 55 ( B I A 2007) ( cons i der i ng, i nt eral i a, 2003 Fuj i an pr ovi nce f ami l ypl anni ng deci s i ons ) ; M att er of J - W - S- , 24 I & N D ec. 185, 189- 90 ( B I A 2007) ( cons i der i ng, i nt eral i a, 2004 A i r d aff i davi t ) ; s ee a l s o L i u v. A tt ’ yG en. , 555 F. 3d 145, 149- 50 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng the B I A ’ s fi ndi ng i n J - W - S- that“the C hi nes e governm entdoes not have anat i onal pol i cyof r equi r i ng for ced s t er i l i zat i on of a pa r entw ho r eturns w i th a s e c o n d c h i l d b o rn o u t s i d e o f C h i n a . ” ) ; Z h e n g , 5 4 9 F . 3 d a t2 6 7 n . 4 ( “ We have r ej ect ed A i r d’ s pos i t i on. ”) . C hen off er s nothi ng t o convi nce us thatthe B I A ’ s as s es s m entw as an abus e of di s cr et i on. Fi nal l y , the B I A s t at ed thatthe bi r th of C hen’ s s econd c hi l d i n the U ni t ed St at es “r efl ect s a change i n herper s onal ci r cumst ance s i n thi s country , and does notes t abl i s h a cha nge i n ci r cumst ance s orcountrycondi t i ons ‘ ar i s i ng i n the c o u n tryo f

n a tio n a lity ’. . . . . ” f

o r p u rp o se s o f

§ 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(3 )(ii). T h is concl us i on comport s w i th ourpr ece dent . See Li u, 555 F. 3d at148. C hen a rg u e s th a t th e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n “ is n o n se n sic a l b e c a u se th e [ B ]o a rd sh o u ld cons i derthe fa ctof herchi l d bi r th w i th the bac kgr ound m at er i al s s ubm i t t ed. ” H ow ever , even c ons i der ed i n l i ghtof C hen’ s backgr ound m at er i al s , the bi r th of C hen’ s s econd c hi l d w as nots uffi ci entt o w arr antr eopeni ng. T he bac kgr ound7

m a te ri a ls d id n o t e s ta b lis h th e n e c e s s a ry m a te ri a l c h a n g e in c o u n tryc o n d itio n s . Id . a t 1 5 1 . I I I . C oncl us i on F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.